In his report Kitchen explores seven different ways to help fund the restructured GTAH transit and transportation system.
1. Dedicated Municipal Fuel Tax
This would involve an additional tax at the pumps piggybacked onto the existing price of gas. Those who use the roads would pay. A rate of, for example, 6 cents a litre would be the equivalent of a 4.7% to 6.6% increase in property taxes. This year’s rising gas prices have left many commuters hot and bothered. Could such a tax be sold with a commitment to lower property taxes?
2. Tolls and Congestion Charges
Tolls and Congestion Charges “can be effective in controlling people’s behaviour” and are in place in many jurisdictions around the world. Kitchen recommends them for major highways but notes that some decisions are needed prior to putting these charges in place as to whether the existing public transit system offers an effective alternative. Perhaps Metrolinx provides a forum for this.
3. Tax on Non residential Parking Spaces
The City of Toronto already has the right to tax parking spaces and such a tax would likely have some impact on deterring auto use and increased transits.
4. Vehicle Registration Charges
Again Toronto is the only city that currently can levy such a tax. Taxes could be higher for higher emitting cars, heavier vehicles (as they do more damage to roads) or older cars.
5. Drivers License Charges
Municipalities could also take a chunk of an enhanced charge on licenses but Kitchen does not recommend this.
6. High Occupancy Toll Lanes
Apparently HOV lanes in the U.S. are not meeting their objectives. So in some cases these lanes are being turned into High Occupancy Toll Lanes where you can pay for the pleasure of getting a faster ride. Kitchen wants us to try this one out.
7. Value Capture Levies
If a property’s value is enhanced through spending on public infrastructure and zoning decisions it could be appropriate to capture some of the gains that the private sector has realized.
Kitchen feels this could apply in mega projects such as subway or rapid transit expansion.
Time for Action
Lots to think about in Financing Public Transit and Transportation in the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton. Kitchen's final recommendation for a GTAH wide special purpose body made up of directly elected Councillors recalls similar governance discussions in the '90's. Nothing happened then. But something must be done on this file and soon.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Friday, June 13, 2008
Kitchen Report #1
Earlier this year a report by Trent University Professor Harry Kitchen got some coverage in the mainstream media.
This report, Financing Public Transit and Transportation in the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton: Future Initiatives*, includes among its recommendations a call for tolling roads.
This caused quite a stir as apparently our right to drive at no cost is enshrined in the Constitution somewhat like Americans right to bear arms. Here is my new slogan for Ontario license plates: “Drive Free or Die.”
In all seriousness though this is a good report that should promote serious discussion.
Let’s Get The Price Right
It is really a no-brainer to say it but we need an effective and efficient public transit and transportation system for economic and environmental reasons. Things are getting worse not better.
As Kitchen says “something must be done.”
An important aspect of what must be done is setting correct prices.
Kitchen notes:
“A more efficient and effective transportation system can only be achieved if users (businesses, individuals and governments) pay for the infrastructure and operational cost of services it provides – building, maintenance and repairs plus environmental damages."
He sets out some principles.
For example, those who benefit from local infrastructure and the services it provides should pay for it. (This is called the benefits based model.)
According to Kitchen, services such as public transit and highways “have a mix of private and public good characteristics” and, therefore, financing should be based on the theory of “second best.”
Principles of efficiency and fairness would suggest that car and truck drivers pay a charge that reflects the full cost (capital, operating plus congestion and environmental costs).
But car and truck drivers pay nothing to local governments for each trip taken while transit users are charged when they travel.
This logic justifies some subsidization of public transit but also provides rationale for the implementation of road charges that are designed to control road use.
So while subsidizing public transit makes sense Kitchen says that determining the exact subsidy (and what you’ll pay at the farebox) is a “tricky business” that really has more to do with politics than actual costs. And that is probably the way it should be until the competitive form of transportation i.e., roads is costed properly.
If there was a level playing field “public transit might not require a subsidy to be competitive: certainly it is unlikely that it would require the size of subsidy it often gets.”
Back to you Tomorrow
If you’re still with this argument I know you will be keen to find ways to put proper prices in place. But you’ll have to wait until tomorrow.
Here is a bit of a tease. It is complicated because while the problems that need solving are GTHA wide ones the responsibility for our transit and much of our roads is generally in local hands.
*You can find this report on the Residential and Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario’s (RCCAO) website.
This report, Financing Public Transit and Transportation in the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton: Future Initiatives*, includes among its recommendations a call for tolling roads.
This caused quite a stir as apparently our right to drive at no cost is enshrined in the Constitution somewhat like Americans right to bear arms. Here is my new slogan for Ontario license plates: “Drive Free or Die.”
In all seriousness though this is a good report that should promote serious discussion.
Let’s Get The Price Right
It is really a no-brainer to say it but we need an effective and efficient public transit and transportation system for economic and environmental reasons. Things are getting worse not better.
As Kitchen says “something must be done.”
An important aspect of what must be done is setting correct prices.
Kitchen notes:
“A more efficient and effective transportation system can only be achieved if users (businesses, individuals and governments) pay for the infrastructure and operational cost of services it provides – building, maintenance and repairs plus environmental damages."
He sets out some principles.
For example, those who benefit from local infrastructure and the services it provides should pay for it. (This is called the benefits based model.)
According to Kitchen, services such as public transit and highways “have a mix of private and public good characteristics” and, therefore, financing should be based on the theory of “second best.”
Principles of efficiency and fairness would suggest that car and truck drivers pay a charge that reflects the full cost (capital, operating plus congestion and environmental costs).
But car and truck drivers pay nothing to local governments for each trip taken while transit users are charged when they travel.
This logic justifies some subsidization of public transit but also provides rationale for the implementation of road charges that are designed to control road use.
So while subsidizing public transit makes sense Kitchen says that determining the exact subsidy (and what you’ll pay at the farebox) is a “tricky business” that really has more to do with politics than actual costs. And that is probably the way it should be until the competitive form of transportation i.e., roads is costed properly.
If there was a level playing field “public transit might not require a subsidy to be competitive: certainly it is unlikely that it would require the size of subsidy it often gets.”
Back to you Tomorrow
If you’re still with this argument I know you will be keen to find ways to put proper prices in place. But you’ll have to wait until tomorrow.
Here is a bit of a tease. It is complicated because while the problems that need solving are GTHA wide ones the responsibility for our transit and much of our roads is generally in local hands.
*You can find this report on the Residential and Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario’s (RCCAO) website.
Friday, June 06, 2008
Bus Bites #1
(First in a series of occasional short pieces on how our public transit system can reveal our local history.)
Regular readers will notice that we tend to go on about public transit at when the mayor smiles. Today we’ll take a break and get on the bus – Burlington’s route #5 to be specific.
You can see a lot from a bus but imagination helps.
The #5 BT leaves the John Street bus terminal and runs west on Ontario Street. Much history is evident.
At the corner of Locust and Ontario Street, for example, sits L’Eglise St. Philippe built in 1875. The Gothic Revival style building served as Calvary Baptist Church for many years. St. Luke’s Anglican Church (the Brant family’s Church) built in 1834 stands out further to the west.
Perhaps the historical highlight of #5 is "The Gingerbread House." Located at 1375 Ontario Street is often described as Burlington's best-known heritage landmark.
Heritage Burlington’s website ( www.burlington.ca/heritage/) calls it “(a) grand two-and-a-half-storey frame structure in Queen Anne Revival Style.” Originally part of Joseph Brant's Crown Grant, it was purchased for $450 by A. B. Coleman in 1893.
Some Imagination Required
Leaving Ontario Street the #5 turns south on Maple Avenue. You’ll need to close your eyes and open up your imagination to conjure up what the community has lost here on Maple Avenue. (But that is a story for another day.)
The Hotel Brant - built by the same A.B. Coleman in 1902, once dominated the southwest corner of Lakeshore/Northshore and Maple, where the museum and hospital now stand.
At a cost of $100,000 it was “ a capacious building with accommodation for over 250 guests. According to Burlington – An Illustrated History (Loverseed 1988):
“The hotel was equipped with all the modern conveniences, ample private and public baths on every floor, and lighted throughout with electricity. The dining room covered over 8,000 square feet. “
The Hotel Brant did not/could not serve liquor so Mr. Coleman opened an exclusive gentleman’s club across the street on the site that eventually became the Brant Inn.
Our bus continues on Northshore, Francis Road etc. winding its way back to the Terminal. Ten boardings (20 per hour) are counted on this May 14th mid-day route.
Regular readers will notice that we tend to go on about public transit at when the mayor smiles. Today we’ll take a break and get on the bus – Burlington’s route #5 to be specific.
You can see a lot from a bus but imagination helps.
The #5 BT leaves the John Street bus terminal and runs west on Ontario Street. Much history is evident.
At the corner of Locust and Ontario Street, for example, sits L’Eglise St. Philippe built in 1875. The Gothic Revival style building served as Calvary Baptist Church for many years. St. Luke’s Anglican Church (the Brant family’s Church) built in 1834 stands out further to the west.
Perhaps the historical highlight of #5 is "The Gingerbread House." Located at 1375 Ontario Street is often described as Burlington's best-known heritage landmark.
Heritage Burlington’s website ( www.burlington.ca/heritage/) calls it “(a) grand two-and-a-half-storey frame structure in Queen Anne Revival Style.” Originally part of Joseph Brant's Crown Grant, it was purchased for $450 by A. B. Coleman in 1893.
Some Imagination Required
Leaving Ontario Street the #5 turns south on Maple Avenue. You’ll need to close your eyes and open up your imagination to conjure up what the community has lost here on Maple Avenue. (But that is a story for another day.)
The Hotel Brant - built by the same A.B. Coleman in 1902, once dominated the southwest corner of Lakeshore/Northshore and Maple, where the museum and hospital now stand.
At a cost of $100,000 it was “ a capacious building with accommodation for over 250 guests. According to Burlington – An Illustrated History (Loverseed 1988):
“The hotel was equipped with all the modern conveniences, ample private and public baths on every floor, and lighted throughout with electricity. The dining room covered over 8,000 square feet. “
The Hotel Brant did not/could not serve liquor so Mr. Coleman opened an exclusive gentleman’s club across the street on the site that eventually became the Brant Inn.
Our bus continues on Northshore, Francis Road etc. winding its way back to the Terminal. Ten boardings (20 per hour) are counted on this May 14th mid-day route.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Buses on Dundas Street
Tore myself from the computer last week to rush to Burlington's Silly Hall to add my two cents worth to “Metrolinx Update” a report under review at Committee.
Metrolinx, formerly the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority, is charged with developing and implementing “an integrated multi-modal transportation plan” for the GTA and Hamilton.
Former Burlington mayor Rob MacIsaac is the chief multi-modal integrator.
We’re a Winner!!!
Metrolinx has taken immediate steps to address our congestion and environmental problems. Called “Quick Wins” an early win was the approval of $57.6 million to cover the capital costs of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service along the Dundas Corridor (Highway #5) from Hamilton to Mississauga.
Good Idea but Cool Reception
This is an important initiative.
It is an intra-regional project that fits within the Metrolinx mission of implementing “an integrated transportation system for our region” (i.e., GTHA).
It offers the potential to enhance our existing Burlington Transit system.
The implementation of the BRT might delay planned widenings on Waterdown and King Road and take pressure off other north-south routes as well as freeing up resources for other priorities, I thought, although Councilors didn’t agree.
Typically, Council is lukewarm, at best, towards this project. Questions from the Mayor suggest that he sees the Dundas Corridor BRT benefiting Oakville much more than Burlington.
It is becoming apparent – to this blogger anyway – that Mayor Jackson would prefer that Burlington Transit be uploaded to the Region. Will this be good for Burlington riders and our air quality? Can we count on senior levels of government to address our congestion concerns? Stay tuned.
My Two Cents Worth
My simple request to involve Metrolinx and the City of Hamilton early in the design and implementation plan didn’t interest Councillors at the Community and Corporate Services Committee.
So, I’m back at the computer.
(Metrolinx consultation documents are available at www.metrolinx.com/. Report TT 16-08 which is heading to the June 9th meeting can be read at www.burlington.ca Contact me at timberline24@hotmail.com for a copy of my presentation.)
Metrolinx, formerly the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority, is charged with developing and implementing “an integrated multi-modal transportation plan” for the GTA and Hamilton.
Former Burlington mayor Rob MacIsaac is the chief multi-modal integrator.
We’re a Winner!!!
Metrolinx has taken immediate steps to address our congestion and environmental problems. Called “Quick Wins” an early win was the approval of $57.6 million to cover the capital costs of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service along the Dundas Corridor (Highway #5) from Hamilton to Mississauga.
Good Idea but Cool Reception
This is an important initiative.
It is an intra-regional project that fits within the Metrolinx mission of implementing “an integrated transportation system for our region” (i.e., GTHA).
It offers the potential to enhance our existing Burlington Transit system.
The implementation of the BRT might delay planned widenings on Waterdown and King Road and take pressure off other north-south routes as well as freeing up resources for other priorities, I thought, although Councilors didn’t agree.
Typically, Council is lukewarm, at best, towards this project. Questions from the Mayor suggest that he sees the Dundas Corridor BRT benefiting Oakville much more than Burlington.
It is becoming apparent – to this blogger anyway – that Mayor Jackson would prefer that Burlington Transit be uploaded to the Region. Will this be good for Burlington riders and our air quality? Can we count on senior levels of government to address our congestion concerns? Stay tuned.
My Two Cents Worth
My simple request to involve Metrolinx and the City of Hamilton early in the design and implementation plan didn’t interest Councillors at the Community and Corporate Services Committee.
So, I’m back at the computer.
(Metrolinx consultation documents are available at www.metrolinx.com/. Report TT 16-08 which is heading to the June 9th meeting can be read at www.burlington.ca Contact me at timberline24@hotmail.com for a copy of my presentation.)
Sunday, May 18, 2008
This Town Needs Some Decent Newspaper Coverage
The Burlington Post* wants to know what their readers have to say regarding a story that they pretty much lifted from the Hamilton Spectator. *
On Monday of this week Spectator columnist Andrew Dreschel wrote a piece suggesting that Burlington’s Mayor Cam Jackson had improperly used his MPP’s office expenses in his bid to become mayor in 2006.
Dreschel’s source for this is a lawyer representing “a group of business people with substantial profile in Burlington.” While these individuals may posses substantial profile, they don’t want their names used.
The Post pretty much repeats the Spectator story in their Wednesday edition and then feigns outrage in a Friday editorial where they lash out at those “who would seem hell bent on soiling” Jackson’s reputation.
Our question: "Who is actually doing the “reputation soiling here?”
If there is evidence of Jackson misusing dollars it should be produced. The fact that both newspapers and our substantially profiled anonymous citizens can’t produce any facts would lead one to believe that there is no such evidence. After all this is an old story going back nearly two years.
Policy Issues not Innuendo Please
I’d rather see both papers concern themselves with policy matters. The Harris government, of which Mayor Jackson was a cabinet minister, caused a lot of grief for those running local governments. How are Jackson and his Council colleagues doing on cleaning up that mess?
Or what about the fact that one in eleven Burlington children live in a home affected by poverty? What are they doing to address the absurdity that in one of the most affluent communities in Canada 11,500 Burlington residents are living in poverty?
*The Burlington Post and the Hamilton Spectator are two papers that provide limited coverage of local government in Burlington. To its credit the Spectator has, over the last couple of years, put much energy into covering the impact of poverty on the lives of Hamilton citizens and the community in general. Also, columnist Joan Little provides insightful and thoughtful analysis on Burlington/Halton poltics but only on alternate weeks.
The Burlington Post publishes three times per week. The Friday May 16 edition referred to here had 36 flyers stuffed inside the otherwise thin edition.
The Metroland Media Group manages both papers.
On Monday of this week Spectator columnist Andrew Dreschel wrote a piece suggesting that Burlington’s Mayor Cam Jackson had improperly used his MPP’s office expenses in his bid to become mayor in 2006.
Dreschel’s source for this is a lawyer representing “a group of business people with substantial profile in Burlington.” While these individuals may posses substantial profile, they don’t want their names used.
The Post pretty much repeats the Spectator story in their Wednesday edition and then feigns outrage in a Friday editorial where they lash out at those “who would seem hell bent on soiling” Jackson’s reputation.
Our question: "Who is actually doing the “reputation soiling here?”
If there is evidence of Jackson misusing dollars it should be produced. The fact that both newspapers and our substantially profiled anonymous citizens can’t produce any facts would lead one to believe that there is no such evidence. After all this is an old story going back nearly two years.
Policy Issues not Innuendo Please
I’d rather see both papers concern themselves with policy matters. The Harris government, of which Mayor Jackson was a cabinet minister, caused a lot of grief for those running local governments. How are Jackson and his Council colleagues doing on cleaning up that mess?
Or what about the fact that one in eleven Burlington children live in a home affected by poverty? What are they doing to address the absurdity that in one of the most affluent communities in Canada 11,500 Burlington residents are living in poverty?
*The Burlington Post and the Hamilton Spectator are two papers that provide limited coverage of local government in Burlington. To its credit the Spectator has, over the last couple of years, put much energy into covering the impact of poverty on the lives of Hamilton citizens and the community in general. Also, columnist Joan Little provides insightful and thoughtful analysis on Burlington/Halton poltics but only on alternate weeks.
The Burlington Post publishes three times per week. The Friday May 16 edition referred to here had 36 flyers stuffed inside the otherwise thin edition.
The Metroland Media Group manages both papers.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Social Assistance Rates Must Reflect Real Cost of Living
An advocate for the creation of a Social Assistance Rates Board caught up with me following my last post.
Hamilton poverty lawyer Craig Foye of McQuesten Legal notes that the new strategy is “is to try to convince the Government to introduce the proposed legislation as a government bill.”
A Private Member’s Bill that Foye and others had worked on had received first reading in June 2007 but died on the order paper when the government adjourned.
What is a Social Assistance Review Board?
This Board would produce an annual report that would propose social assistance rates that take into account the real cost of living in Ontario.
A recommended monthly basic needs rate would enable recipients to obtain nutritious food baskets, cover basic telephone and transportation costs, purchase personal need items and carry out modifications to rental units to accommodate disabilities and more.
The committee would be made up of six to nine members who’d have “expertise in poverty research.” At least two members would have experience with receiving social assistance and two members would possess expertise regarding the cost of living for persons with disabilities.
Next Steps
Foye hopes that groups and individuals will support the legislation by contacting their MPP and participating in the provincial poverty reduction consultations.
“It is important to tell the government that evidence-based social assistance rates must be part of any poverty reduction strategy,” Foye asserts.
Craig is working with researchers to project the economic/financial impacts on the Hamilton economy that would result from an increase in social assistance rates to subsistence levels.
This will be a useful number. In 1995 Halton Region staff estimated that social assistance costs took $12 – 14 million dollars out of the Burlington economy.
I’m not aware of any accounting done by government on the impact these cuts had on real people.
Hamilton poverty lawyer Craig Foye of McQuesten Legal notes that the new strategy is “is to try to convince the Government to introduce the proposed legislation as a government bill.”
A Private Member’s Bill that Foye and others had worked on had received first reading in June 2007 but died on the order paper when the government adjourned.
What is a Social Assistance Review Board?
This Board would produce an annual report that would propose social assistance rates that take into account the real cost of living in Ontario.
A recommended monthly basic needs rate would enable recipients to obtain nutritious food baskets, cover basic telephone and transportation costs, purchase personal need items and carry out modifications to rental units to accommodate disabilities and more.
The committee would be made up of six to nine members who’d have “expertise in poverty research.” At least two members would have experience with receiving social assistance and two members would possess expertise regarding the cost of living for persons with disabilities.
Next Steps
Foye hopes that groups and individuals will support the legislation by contacting their MPP and participating in the provincial poverty reduction consultations.
“It is important to tell the government that evidence-based social assistance rates must be part of any poverty reduction strategy,” Foye asserts.
Craig is working with researchers to project the economic/financial impacts on the Hamilton economy that would result from an increase in social assistance rates to subsistence levels.
This will be a useful number. In 1995 Halton Region staff estimated that social assistance costs took $12 – 14 million dollars out of the Burlington economy.
I’m not aware of any accounting done by government on the impact these cuts had on real people.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Consultation - McGuinty Syle
The provincial government created Metrolinx to come up with a plan to address the transportation crisis across the GTAH.
Some think it is moving too slowly. However, they have put out five green and two white papers and encouraged public comment. Opportunities for consultation with regular folks are ongoing. I participated in one of these last weekend. And that is a story for another day.
Today’s story though is about non-consultation. OK, the limited consultation process that is being orchestrated by that same Liberal government as they ”tackle the issue of poverty.”
The lead tackler Minister Deb Matthews is doing a series of invitation only events across the province. The first one was in Peterborough. The road show hits Hamilton on May 12th.
Community Concerns
In Peterborough local politicians expressed concern over the lack of openness. They offered Matthews the opportunity to attend an open public meeting. She declined.
The invitation only event was staked out by protestors. According to the Peterborough Examiner there was some scuffling with police.
While there was unhappiness outside it seems that there were good vibes in this closed-door meeting. The Minister appears to be genuinely interested in issues facing people living in poverty.
Government Seeks to Avoid Embarrassment
But it is quite clear, from the government’s perspective, why the consultation must be so heavily orchestrated.
We could mention the fact that the Liberals promised a different kind of government from the Harris/Eves Conservatives they replaced. That would involve open consultation. We could also mention the 2003 promises to build 20,000 new affordable housing units or to give low-income tenants real protection by creating rent controls. Didn’t happen.
You could be sure that open consultation would be embarrassing to a government that hasn’t lived up to its promises. We’d hear about these unfilled promises. We’d hear more too, like how the government cut many of Ontario’s poorest people off the special needs diet allowance.
How about Something Concrete Now
I must admit that, although I can be critical of the lack of open consultation, another part of me just wants the government to get on and do something about poverty.
It is not that hard. You see people live in poverty cause they don’t have enough money.
Up until 1995 we had a social assistance system that was close to providing basic necessities to people who had fallen on hard times. Harris and his cronies changed all when they slashed assistance rates by nearly 22%. Since then there have been only two small increases to these rates - both from the McGuinty government.
A private members bill that would create a Social Assistance Rates Board died when the government adjourned prior to last year’s election. This Board would ensure an appropriate adjustment to these rates would occur each year.
This would seem only fair. It should be easy to put in place and it would make a difference.
Some think it is moving too slowly. However, they have put out five green and two white papers and encouraged public comment. Opportunities for consultation with regular folks are ongoing. I participated in one of these last weekend. And that is a story for another day.
Today’s story though is about non-consultation. OK, the limited consultation process that is being orchestrated by that same Liberal government as they ”tackle the issue of poverty.”
The lead tackler Minister Deb Matthews is doing a series of invitation only events across the province. The first one was in Peterborough. The road show hits Hamilton on May 12th.
Community Concerns
In Peterborough local politicians expressed concern over the lack of openness. They offered Matthews the opportunity to attend an open public meeting. She declined.
The invitation only event was staked out by protestors. According to the Peterborough Examiner there was some scuffling with police.
While there was unhappiness outside it seems that there were good vibes in this closed-door meeting. The Minister appears to be genuinely interested in issues facing people living in poverty.
Government Seeks to Avoid Embarrassment
But it is quite clear, from the government’s perspective, why the consultation must be so heavily orchestrated.
We could mention the fact that the Liberals promised a different kind of government from the Harris/Eves Conservatives they replaced. That would involve open consultation. We could also mention the 2003 promises to build 20,000 new affordable housing units or to give low-income tenants real protection by creating rent controls. Didn’t happen.
You could be sure that open consultation would be embarrassing to a government that hasn’t lived up to its promises. We’d hear about these unfilled promises. We’d hear more too, like how the government cut many of Ontario’s poorest people off the special needs diet allowance.
How about Something Concrete Now
I must admit that, although I can be critical of the lack of open consultation, another part of me just wants the government to get on and do something about poverty.
It is not that hard. You see people live in poverty cause they don’t have enough money.
Up until 1995 we had a social assistance system that was close to providing basic necessities to people who had fallen on hard times. Harris and his cronies changed all when they slashed assistance rates by nearly 22%. Since then there have been only two small increases to these rates - both from the McGuinty government.
A private members bill that would create a Social Assistance Rates Board died when the government adjourned prior to last year’s election. This Board would ensure an appropriate adjustment to these rates would occur each year.
This would seem only fair. It should be easy to put in place and it would make a difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)